Legal Opinion

Bell v. Dimmerling

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 8, 1948No. 31182PublishedCited by 25 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtZimmerman, J.

The following two reasons are advanced by counsel for the defendants as to why the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed and final judgment rendered for the defendants:

1. The paper writing relied on by plaintiff is an “ex-, elusive agency contract” and the defendants themselves were at liberty to sell their property at any time without becoming liable to the plaintiff for the payment of a commission.

2. Such paper writing is no more than an offer to enter into a unilateral contract, imposing no obligation on the plaintiff to do anything; mutuality and consideration are therefore…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Kimmell v. SkellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Harris v. McPhersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  3. Lewis v. SmithCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
  4. Turner v. BakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  5. Brenner v. SpiegleOhio Supreme Court · 1927

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by25 opinions

  1. Worth v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Arthur H. Richland Company v. Edward A. Harper and Rose B. HarperCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1962
  3. Ladd v. TeichmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Patton v. WilsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1949
  5. McDonald v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1965

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API